[lg policy] Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV) report: English-language proficiency low in Turkey

[Harold Schiffman]

TEPAV report: English-language proficiency low in Turkey

26 February 2012 / TODAY’S ZAMAN, İSTANBUL

A report by the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV)
revealed that English-language proficiency is low in Turkey, which has
taken 43rd place out of 44 countries in English-language proficiency
in the Education First English Proficiency Index (EF EPI) 2011 report.

English-language teaching has always been seen as a problematic area
of the Turkish education system. Education experts have long discussed
the reasons why Turkey falls behind foreign countries in terms of
English-language proficiency or the quality of teaching of the English
language. Turkey has taken 43rd place out of 44 countries in
English-language proficiency, falling behind countries such as Chile,
Indonesia and Saudi Arabia in the EF EPI 2011 report, which ranks
countries by the average level of English-speaking skills.

“Turkey’s place in the EF EPI ranking is shocking when its
geopolitical position and the fact that it is the world’s 16th-largest
economy are taken into account,” the report notes. The report states
that English is more commonly known in many other countries that have
weaker economies than Turkey, and it adds that countries in the top 25
allocate for education a minimum of $32,000 for every child aged 6 to
15. However, this amount is as low as $12,708 per student in Turkey.
The lowness of this amount is generally attributed to Turkey’s low
teacher salaries, poor-quality English-language teaching resources and
a lack of interactive language-teaching materials in Turkish schools.
Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Denmark -- where students
learn English from ages 6 to 15 -- take the top spot in
English-language proficiency, and these countries spend around $80,000
per student on education. However, the ranking of Switzerland, which
lies 11th among the 44 countries and spends $104,352 per student,
shows that a high amount of money spent on education does not
necessarily improve the general proficiency in English; Poland is 10th
on the list and spends $39,964 per student on education.

 According to the report, the main reason Turkey has fallen behind in
English-language learning is that compulsory lessons begin at age 10.
However, in other countries where English-language proficiency is
high, students start to learn English when they first start school. In
addition, only basic English skills are tested on high-school entry
exams, and students do not go through a year where they only learn
English before starting their studies in state universities. Until
2005, all state university students had to go through a year-long
English-language learning course before they started their degree, and
this is still the case in a few private universities. The report
mentions that English plays a very significant role in supporting a
country’s economy. Because English is spoken around the world, it is
almost impossible for entrepreneurs who cannot communicate effectively
in English to be successful internationally, so it can be said that a
high English-language proficiency is an indispensible aspect of a
country’s economic growth.

TEPAV ends the report with some suggestions to foster English-language
proficiency in Turkey. Separating English language education into two
categories -- the teaching of English to school-age students and the
teaching of English to adults -- the report proposes for the first
category that the quality of English-language teaching should be
improved, and the teaching of English in Turkey should start at an
earlier age, such as in first grade, and be done by teachers who
specialized in language teaching, not by any teacher who knows
English.

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-272509-tepav-report-english-language-proficiency-low-in-turkey.html

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list